Decision
Mr Z and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Department)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130234
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130234
Published on
Whether the Department has provided a sufficient statement of reasons to the applicant in relation to his request, under Section 18 of the FOI Act, for the reasons for his non-inclusion on a roster for appointments to positions as Election Observers
27 February 2014
Following an application from a person who is affected by an 'act' of a public body, section 18(1) provides that :
"The head of a public body shall, ...cause a statement, in writing or in such other form as may be determined, to be given to the person:
(a) of the reasons for the act, and
(b) of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act".
The Department organised a competition in February 2013 to create a new Election Observation roster. The applicant applied for the competition, but his application was unsuccessful. He then made a request under section 18 of the FOI Act, on 24 July 2013, for a statement of the reasons why his application was unsuccessful. He also sought a statement of the reasons for the Department's decision not to interview the candidates, which it had indicated that it would do in the original competition notice.
The Department issued a statement of reasons to him on both matters on 19 August 2013. On 20th August 2013 the applicant wrote to the Department seeking an internal review of the statement of reasons given, on the basis that he considered it to be "inadequate and materially incorrect", and he outlined a number of objections to aspects of the reasons provided in the statement. The Department issued its internal review on 23 September 2013, and this review affirmed the original decision. However, in doing so, the Department also sought to respond to the objections raised by the applicant to the contents of the original statement.
Following the Department's internal review, the applicant remained dissatisfied with the response of the Department, and he sought a review by the Information Commissioner of the Department's decision on the same day, 23 September 2013. Following communication with this Office, the Department issued a further statement to the applicant on 10 January 2014 providing further clarification in relation to how the candidate was assessed under the various evaluation criteria for the competition.
In carrying out my review, I have had regard to correspondence between the Department and the applicant as set out above, to details of various contacts between this Office and the Department, to details of communications between this Office and the applicant, and in particular to the email sent to him by Mr. Richie Philpott, Investigator, of this Office, dated 23 January 2014, which invited him to make a further submission on the matter, should it be the case that he was still unhappy with the Department's position. By email dated 20 February 2014, the applicant made a further submission. Having regard to the applicant's response, I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal binding decision. In doing so I have had regard to the contents of the applicant's submission, and I have also had regard to the relevant provisions of the FOI Act.
My review is concerned solely with the question of whether the statements of reasons, provided to the applicant by the Department, are adequate, for the purposes of section 18 of the FOI Act.
Where a requester applies for a review of a decision of a public body on the grounds that s/he is not satisfied with the contents of a statement of reasons, my role is confined to deciding whether the public body has complied with the requirements imposed on it by section 18, i.e. whether the statement given is adequate. My remit does not extend to examining the appropriateness or otherwise of the particular act for which reasons are sought. In this instance, the 'act' in question is the decision not to include the applicant on the roster of Election Observers.
At this point it would be useful to set out what I consider should be the principal features of a statement of reasons having regard to section 18. In my view, a statement of reasons should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable the requester to understand without undue difficulty why the public body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, I do not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by a requester as relevant to a particular act or decision.
The applicant's detailed submission of 20 February 2014 takes issue with the appropriateness or otherwise of the reasoning which led to the determination of the marks which he was awarded in the competition. This matter is outside the scope of the review. I am solely concerned with the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided to the applicant.
I have carefully examined the statements provided by the Department, and in my view they provide more than sufficient detail in relation to the matters at issue. The statements provide significant details of the reasoning for the decision not to hold interviews, and also detailed explanations of the marks awarded to the applicant in connection with his application, and his consequent failure to be included in the roster of Election Observers. Furthermore, is it clear that the applicant's continuing objections to the statements provided pertain to the appropriateness of the decisions taken by the Department, and are therefore outside the scope of this review.
I therefore consider that the Department has met its obligations under section 18 of the FOI Act by providing adequate explanations for the decisions which were queried by the applicant. I find accordingly.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm that the statements provided by the Department to the applicant are satisfactory and meet the requirements of section 18 of the FOI Act.
A party to a review, or any other person affected by a decision of the Information Commissioner following a review, may appeal to the High Court on a point of law arising from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date on which notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Sean Garvey
Senior Investigator